OTTAWA - National Hockey League team owners are now seriously considering forming a new league.
A team owner, who was speaking on condition that his identity was not divulged, says it might come as early as January.
Under the structure of the NHL, it has the ability to shutdown and begin in a new way, if extended negotiations with the players' union fail to reach a deal.
Won't happen. If I recall, the NHL's Board of Governors have to vote to disband...and very few will agree to this. I betcha it's the Canadian teams, plus Buffalo, Carolina & Pittsburgh who want to this.
CALGARY FLAMES: Your 2004 Western Conference Champions DVDs I Own
I'd agree with the previous post that it won't ever get that far, but the fact that such a mindset exists troubles me. That article also mentions that players have a similar idea, but in the end would either side think they'd really be better off without the other? No matter how much they hate each other at this point in time, aren't making concessions better than this end of the world alternative? The prospect of owners having to find a new batch of players, and vice versa, seems like it would just set hockey back and cause more problems than there are now.
Vampiro gave a tomstone piledriver to the Midget Blue Monkey
This immediately and unequivocally makes him PUBLIC ENEMY #1
And I thought Sepp Blatter made problems for 'soccer'. I don't like the way the US leagues are set-up anyway. All these bargaining agreements and strikes.
I ran, I ran so far away 'cos I want you to want me and I was angry when I met you, you stupid girl Can you spot Big Ron Atkinson?
The NHL is the worst run league in professional sports. It would almost be worth it to blow the whole thing up, clear out Bettman and all the dirtbag owners, clear out Goodenow since he's worthless, and start a new league in a couple of years made entirely of Canadian teams and maybe good US hockey markets like Minnesota and Detroit. Make it about 12 teams and it would utterly kick ass. See you in hell, NHL.
I REALLY don't see why the NHLPA sees fit to argue about a salary cap. While I agree on the one hand that it's not the players' fault that the owners' spending went out of control, the fact is that the players get a much higher percentage of the league revenue (isn't it almost 75%?) compared to what the players in healthy, successful, first-rate leagues (i.e. the NFL and NBA) get, and they SHOULD see that the good health of the league will only lead to revenues going up and the players' salaries eventually getting back up to where they are now.
I think the NHLPA looks at the MLBPA and doesn't want to come off as weak-assed compared to how powerful the MLBPA is. Too bad the MLBPA is one of the MOST powerful unions in the WORLD and the NHLPA is like a tiny speck by comparison.
“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted. I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
Originally posted by Big BadThe NHL is the worst run league in professional sports. It would almost be worth it to blow the whole thing up, clear out Bettman and all the dirtbag owners, clear out Goodenow since he's worthless, and start a new league in a couple of years made entirely of Canadian teams and maybe good US hockey markets like Minnesota and Detroit. Make it about 12 teams and it would utterly kick ass. See you in hell, NHL.
That would imply there are ten good hockey markets in Canada, and I just dont see THAT happening.
Originally posted by JayJayDeanI REALLY don't see why the NHLPA sees fit to argue about a salary cap. While I agree on the one hand that it's not the players' fault that the owners' spending went out of control, the fact is that the players get a much higher percentage of the league revenue (isn't it almost 75%?) compared to what the players in healthy, successful, first-rate leagues (i.e. the NFL and NBA) get, and they SHOULD see that the good health of the league will only lead to revenues going up and the players' salaries eventually getting back up to where they are now.
I think the NHLPA looks at the MLBPA and doesn't want to come off as weak-assed compared to how powerful the MLBPA is. Too bad the MLBPA is one of the MOST powerful unions in the WORLD and the NHLPA is like a tiny speck by comparison.
The player's argument is why should they be forced to take a hit because the owner's overpaid or spent too much on payroll?
The high player salaries are not the player's fault, why should the burden be on them to correct that problem?
They will end up having to make some concessions for the good of the game but the owners are the ones who put themselves in this position.
Insensitive Funny Comment of the Week: "You don't buy prostitutes ... They're human beings! You rent them!" Artie Lange
Originally posted by JayJayDeanI REALLY don't see why the NHLPA sees fit to argue about a salary cap. While I agree on the one hand that it's not the players' fault that the owners' spending went out of control, the fact is that the players get a much higher percentage of the league revenue (isn't it almost 75%?) compared to what the players in healthy, successful, first-rate leagues (i.e. the NFL and NBA) get, and they SHOULD see that the good health of the league will only lead to revenues going up and the players' salaries eventually getting back up to where they are now.
I think the NHLPA looks at the MLBPA and doesn't want to come off as weak-assed compared to how powerful the MLBPA is. Too bad the MLBPA is one of the MOST powerful unions in the WORLD and the NHLPA is like a tiny speck by comparison.
The player's argument is why should they be forced to take a hit because the owner's overpaid or spent too much on payroll?
The high player salaries are not the player's fault, why should the burden be on them to correct that problem?
They will end up having to make some concessions for the good of the game but the owners are the ones who put themselves in this position.
Isn't that what I said? While I agree on the one hand that it's not the players' fault that the owners' spending went out of control
I'm just saying you would think the players could recognize the poor health of the league in comparison to a league like the NFL, and do their part to help make the league stronger. When was the last time a Buffalo or Pittsburgh bankruptcy situation happened in the NFL or NBA? Why wouldn't the NHLPA see that those leagues are doing well, in part, because they have salary caps and accept that the NHL likely needs one for its long-term health?
The owners could just do a market-correction like the baseball owners are doing...how would the NHLPA like that?
“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted. I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
Originally posted by fuelinjectedThe player's argument is why should they be forced to take a hit because the owner's overpaid or spent too much on payroll?
The high player salaries are not the player's fault, why should the burden be on them to correct that problem?
They will end up having to make some concessions for the good of the game but the owners are the ones who put themselves in this position.
Look at that statement from the perspective of the median player salary, rather than that of the superstar or even the mean. I'll bet the rank and file of the NHLPA would be far happier with the same number of teams and players with a cap, and would overrule the superstars who would be outraged over their salary decline.
/Spock on/ The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Jeremy Roenick has gone public with an idea for a CBA deal that the NHLPA is apparently not interested in, but is worth some discussion.
In a nutshell, it wouldn't cap teams but would cap individual player salaries at between 6-7 million bucks a season and create a "smaller cap" at the bottom end of the scale. The PA doesn't like it because it's still a form of a cap, but I think there's something to the idea. As long as you put in a couple of protections so that teams don't just circumvent the cap via signing bonuses and bogus incentives, this could create a whole new salary structure over the next couple of years.
If you set in stone that Martin Brodeur can only earn seven million bucks a year, you don't have guys like Mats Sundin earning ten. Instead, in relative terms, he's worth 4-5. If Lidstrom is getting six million bucks, an arbitrator isn't gonna give Gonchar 5+. Obviously things will be a bit out of whack for a couple years, but with individual caps and the arbitration process already in place you can get a much more reasonable salary structure out of the whole thing.
His minimal team salary idea is also a good one. If you've got a team, a Buffalo or a Pittsburgh, that struggles to pay a predetermined amount that is estimated necessary to compete, that team shouldn't exist. The league wants a $31 million cap; the Penguins 2003-04 payroll was only 75% of that. 5.25 mil of that went to the owner. It's a joke. If the league is arguing that they want a competitive, sustainable league, fine, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that before the other side gives concessions they should get a guarantee that what they're giving up is going towards the stated intended result.
In my opinion, markets that *should* have NHL teams: -Calgary -Edmonton -Vancouver -Toronto/Hamilton -Montreal/Quebec City -Ottawa -Denver -Chicago -Detroit -Boston/Hartford -New York/Long Island -New Jersey -Philadelphia -Los Angeles/Anaheim -Minneapolis/St. Paul -St. Louis
The NHL got into trouble when they started moving too far south and putting 2 teams where only 1 could survive.
EDIT: Like an idiot, I forgot Minnesota & St. Louis.
(edited by Freeway420 on 3.9.04 1914) CALGARY FLAMES: Your 2004 Western Conference Champions DVDs I Own
Originally posted by Freeway420In my opinion, markets that *should* have NHL teams: -Calgary -Edmonton -Vancouver -Toronto/Hamilton -Montreal/Quebec City -Ottawa -Denver -Chicago -Detroit -Boston/Hartford -New York/Long Island -New Jersey -Philadelphia -Los Angeles/Anaheim
The NHL got into trouble when they started moving too far south and putting 2 teams where only 1 could survive.
You left St. Louis off the list, like it or not they are always in the top 10 in attendance, and they are rabidly supported here.
Lisa: Poor predicatble Bart, always picks rock Bart: Good ole rock, nothing beats that
Minneapolis/St. Paul isn't on that list?? They're the most hockey-loving people in the entire USA. The Stars only left because Norm Green was greedy, not because of any lessening fan base. Just look at the Wild's success thus far.
Originally posted by Big BadMinneapolis/St. Paul isn't on that list?? They're the most hockey-loving people in the entire USA. The Stars only left because Norm Green was greedy, not because of any lessening fan base. Just look at the Wild's success thus far.
I would agree with this as well. During last nights USA/Russia game they mentioned that every game in the arena the Wild play in (cant remember the name) has been sold out for 4 years, if that isn't a good fan base I dont know what is.
Lisa: Poor predicatble Bart, always picks rock Bart: Good ole rock, nothing beats that
Thread rated: 5.05
#
#
#
